[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22517-22532]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      CONSOLIDATED SECURITY, DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND CONTINUING 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  Mr. REID. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume 
consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 2638, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany H.R. 2638, the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act/Continuing Resolution 
     for 2009.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10 a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
that the time be charged against both the majority and the minority.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair 
lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 
     2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act/
     Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2009.
         Evan Bayh, Debbie Stabenow, Benjamin L. Cardin, Byron L. 
           Dorgan, Barbara A. Mikulski, Jeff Bingaman, John F. 
           Kerry, Herb Kohl, Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, Benjamin 
           Nelson, Richard Durbin, Patrick J. Leahy, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Claire McCaskill, 
           Bernard Sanders.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the amendment of the 
Senate to H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 
Act/Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2009, shall be brought to a 
close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 83, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--12

     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Graham
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Sessions
     Shelby

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bayh
     Biden
     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). On this vote, the yeas are 83; 
the nays are 12. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are now working our way through 
postcloture time. Everyone has been very courteous and agreeable. We 
will probably have to spend 2\1/2\ hours before we have the final vote 
on this CR. It will probably be around 1 o'clock. We would hope that we 
can condense the time. That would be 1 o'clock today rather than 4 
o'clock or 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. That being the case, the only 
matter that is left that we have to be concerned about is the 
Department of Defense authorization. My plan, as I have explained to 
the Republican leader, is to file cloture on that today for a Monday 
cloture vote. We can't wait until Wednesday to do that, for obvious 
reasons. Now it appears our goal is to try to complete everything next 
week.
  For the information of all Members, staff worked until 3 o'clock this 
morning on the rescue plan for the financial problems we have in 
America today.
  There are a number of issues that need to be resolved by Members. 
Chairman Dodd has indicated he is going to get people together sometime 
today when appropriate. Staff has to move down the road a little bit 
longer. The goal is to try to come up with a final agreement by 
tomorrow. Now, we may not be able to do that, but we are trying very 
hard. It is something I think shows how we can work together. It is an 
issue on which none of us would like to be working, but we have to work 
on it.
  If we are going to be able to do what it appears we can do, it will 
resolve a lot of the questions people have around the country because 
it is not the proposal we got from Secretary Paulson. It is one where 
Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate are working to 
get an end product.
  Without getting into the details--I do not think we should do that 
now, and I talked to Chairman Dodd earlier today, and he also agrees we 
should not get into the details right now. But if we can do that, at 
least announce sometime tomorrow that we have the beginning of an 
agreement--we are told it is very important we do that--if we could do 
it by 6 o'clock tomorrow, it would be important because that is when 
the Asian markets open, and everyone is waiting for this thing to tip a 
little bit too far, that we may not have another day. But if we can 
announce an agreement, then it is going to take some time to draft this 
because we know people want to read every line, as they should. We are 
going to work something out on that.
  I have spoken to the Republican leader. It is possible, with the 
agreement of Senators Baucus and Grassley, that we could use a tax 
measure they already have, that we would start here first. Now, my 
inclination is not to do that. We should have the House do it first. 
But there are a lot of possibilities floating around. I am going to 
keep in as close touch as I can with Senator McConnell, and he will 
notify his Members when that is appropriate, and I will do the same.
  So we will have one more vote today. We think we have that worked 
out. We do not have the actual agreement--I do have it. Everyone should 
know I am getting pretty good at reading Lula's writing, which is OK, 
but not real good.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture time be 
yielded back except that the following be recognized to speak, and at 
the expiration of that time the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to 
concur, and

[[Page 22518]]

there be no further intervening action or debate; that the people who 
will speak on the motion to concur be Senator Byrd, 15 minutes; Senator 
Cochran, 15 minutes; Senator Coburn, 15 minutes; Senator Sessions, 30 
minutes; Senator Kyl, 10 minutes; Senator DeMint, 15 minutes; Senator 
Landrieu, 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I understand there are many plans that 
have been made this weekend, and I appreciate the cooperation of the 
Democratic leader and the Republican leader. I appreciate the good work 
that some of my Republican and Democratic colleagues have done this 
last week, particularly Chairman Harkin. However, on ag we are about 
ready to close out a session without a substantial and adequate advance 
or plan to help the agricultural community, and the rules that have 
been written in the last farm bill are not adequate.
  I have asked the leader for 1 hour to speak today. I do not think 
that is too much to try to advance the effort. I thank Senator 
Hutchison for signing on. I have asked for just a vote at the next 
available time--not today, not on this bill.
  Would the leader please respond if an hour would be available?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are happy to change the 30 minutes in 
the consent that is being sought now to have 1 hour for the Senator 
from Louisiana. What we have been working on today is that there are a 
number of agricultural States: Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, and a lot 
of----
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mississippi.
  Mr. REID. Mississippi, and a lot of other States. We have an 
agreement that there is a piece of legislation that Senators from a 
number of States will sign onto, Democrats and Republicans. Senator 
McConnell and I will do everything we can to bring it up. Everyone 
understands the Senate rules, and we will do our best to get it up.
  Now, we cannot guarantee a vote, but we will guarantee that we will 
do everything we can to bring this matter before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. As modified, with Senator Landrieu having 1 hour, 60 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I just want to indicate to my 
Republican colleagues we will have a briefing in the Mansfield Room at 
11 o'clock from Senator Gregg to bring everyone up to date on the 
status of the talks that are going on. Staff worked, as the majority 
leader indicated, through the evening, and this will be an opportunity 
to bring everybody up to date.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, will the leader yield to the Senator 
from New Mexico for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have a question of the majority 
leader or the minority leader.
  I have been asked by a number of people who want to come to the 
Senate floor when I give a couple sentences of goodbye to the Senate, 
and I am just wondering when might such things be available for myself, 
Senator Warner----
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have prepared a speech that I want to 
give for my friend. We have worked together for so many years. I am 
going to do that on Monday. We are going to be in session on Monday, 
and we will likely have a vote Monday on the Defense Department 
authorization bill. If we don't, we are still going to be in session. I 
think we send the wrong message to America if we leave here with this 
bailout not having been done. So I am going to give my speech on Monday 
about you, I say to the Senator, and that would be a good time to give 
one.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I know Senator Warner would like to 
speak. That is satisfactory with me, as long as we are expecting to 
give people like you and me a little bit of time.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, we will have time next week to make sure 
we do. There are a number of Senators who want to say a few words or 
many words--whatever they choose--about departing Senators. So we are 
going to have plenty of time to do that next week.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank our leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I, too, had planned to speak about 
Senator Domenici and Senator Warner today, and I will check with them 
on their schedules because I certainly would like for them to be here 
on the floor of the Senate. Obviously, a better time to do that, if it 
were done today, would be after the vote, an hour and a half or so from 
now. But I will be conferring with them about that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request of 
the majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I speak today in support of the Consolidated 
Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 
2009.
  The measure that is before the Senate includes the fiscal year 2009 
Defense appropriations bill, the fiscal year 2009 Military Construction 
and Veterans Affairs bill, and the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security 
bill.
  In addition, the measure includes a continuing resolution for fiscal 
year 2009, which provides funding for Government operations at fiscal 
year 2008 levels through March 6, 2009.
  In response to the Midwest floods and Hurricanes Gustav, Hanna, and 
Ike, the measure includes $22.3 billion of critical disaster relief.
  The measure also includes funding to support $25 billion of auto 
industry loans that were authorized in the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007. These loans will provide a critical boost to the 
effort to develop energy-efficient vehicles, while creating thousands--
thousands, I will say--of new jobs. The bill also includes $5.1 billion 
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and $250 million for 
the Weatherization Program. With this funding, an additional 5.7 
million households will get assistance in coping with dramatically 
rising home heating costs. At the current funding level, the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program serves only 15 percent of eligible 
families.
  The message that is before the Senate lives up to the commitment we 
made to support our troops, provide first class health care to our 
veterans, secure our homeland, direct relief to the victims of natural 
disasters all across this great Nation of ours, and provide help for 
families on Main Street.
  Madam President, my good friend, Senator Thad Cochran, and I began 
this year with the goal of producing 12 bipartisan, fiscally 
responsible appropriations bills. The Committee on Appropriations made 
great progress in reporting nine such bills by the end of July. 
Regrettably, the President--your President, my President, our 
President--chose to announce that he would veto any of the bills--hear 
that--he would veto any of the bills--did you hear that--that he would 
veto any of the bills that exceeded his request.
  Our bills included critical increases in funding for veterans health 
care, for job-creating programs such as highway and mass transit, for 
the National Institutes of Health, and for fighting crime in our 
streets. As a result of the President's veto threats, the 
appropriations process has fallen prey to the election cycle. 
Therefore, in order to fulfill our promises to the troops and to our 
veterans, we have, once again, yes, been forced to use an omnibus 
appropriations measure to complete our work. I disdain--I disdain--such 
procedures. But, in order to complete our work, we proceeded on a 
bipartisan basis to produce the legislation that is now before the 
Senate.

[[Page 22519]]

  So I urge all of my fellow Senators--hear me: I urge all of my fellow 
Senators to join me in supporting swift action on these critical 
national priorities.
  Madam President, there is funding in this bill to conduct an 
independent and objective study regarding the withdrawal of our troops 
from Iraq in the next 12 to 18 months. This bill includes $2.4 million 
for the Department of Defense to provide to the RAND Corporation to 
conduct this study. As a Federally-funded research and development 
center and an independent research arm of the Department of Defense, 
RAND has access to the Department of Defense information necessary to 
prepare such plans. Furthermore, the staff at RAND is able to draw on 
expertise from across the entire spectrum of the U.S. government to 
provide a long overdue strategic assessment. This study will assume 
that the United States will leave a limited number of troops in Iraq to 
train Iraqis, target Al Qaeda, and protect our mission after the 
withdrawal of the majority of our forces.
  A study of this scope is long overdue. Secretary of Defense Gates 
stated before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 23, 2008 
that in Iraq, he believes:

       we have now entered that endgame--and our decisions today 
     and tomorrow and in the months ahead will be critical to 
     regional stability and our national security interests for 
     years to come.

  Yet it is unclear where Defense Department formal planning stands on 
withdrawing our forces in a measured and responsible manner. The time 
to begin the Iraq withdrawal is now. This new RAND study will publicly 
and independently help chart the responsible course ahead.
  I wish to thank Chairman Inouye for including this language and 
Senator Kennedy for his strong leadership on this issue.
  Madam President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, according to the order, I was allocated 
a certain amount of time. I think it was 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I doubt if I will use that time, for the information of 
other Senators who may be waiting for the opportunity to speak.
  We have adopted, strictly speaking, an amendment to the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 2638, an act making appropriations for the Department 
of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2008. But most Members are aware 
that what this bill actually contains is the fiscal year 2009 Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill, and the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. It also contains a continuing 
resolution to fund the rest of the Government through March 6, and a 
substantial disaster supplemental in response to floods, wildfires, and 
hurricanes.
  I highlight the title of the bill because it is indicative of the 
sometimes opaque and convoluted process by which the bill was drafted. 
Its contents were determined almost exclusively by staff members and a 
small handful of Members of the Senate. There was no opportunity for 
most Senators to advocate for a specific request. There was no forum in 
which to offer amendments. There were no meetings in which to argue 
policy or discuss grievances that Members may have had with the 
provisions of these bills. There was no meeting of the conference 
committee. Only a few elements of the bill have been previously 
considered on the floor of the Senate. Only the Military Construction 
and Veterans Affairs chapter was debated on the floor of the other 
body. Yet we have only a few days remaining in the fiscal year, and we 
have been compelled to either concur in the House amendment or risk the 
shutdown of the Government.
  The appropriations process has rarely, if ever, been perfect, and I 
am the first to admit that. In many years, the regular order has been 
abandoned at some stage of the process because of pressures of the 
legislative and fiscal calendar.
  This year, we have thrown regular order completely out the window. In 
the process, we have failed both the Senate and, in my opinion, the 
people we represent. Not any of the 12 fiscal year 2009 appropriations 
bills have been brought to the Senate floor. Only one appropriations 
bill was brought to the floor of the House.
  The Senate committee did not mark up even three of the appropriations 
bills, including the Defense bill, that supports men and women in 
uniform, which accounts for almost half of all discretionary spending. 
We didn't consider the bill in committee. Yet here we are with a so-
called conferenced Defense bill buried within a much larger 
appropriations measure, which we have adopted.
  It is not without precedent to have regular bills appended to the 
continuing resolution or other appropriations bills, but this is a $1 
trillion appropriations package that has been presented for final 
action without a conference committee meeting, without any noncommittee 
members having had an opportunity to discuss the issues, to amend the 
bill, and without even committee members having an opportunity to 
consider most of the provisions of the bill.
  Now, the principal reason, we understand, is that the leadership made 
a conscious decision early in the year not to engage the President, not 
to fuss with the President over appropriations bills. Of course, he has 
insisted that his request be honored, that the submission he has made 
to the Congress for appropriations be honored in terms of the top line 
figure; that any bill increasing the amount above the President's 
request would be vetoed. But you know what. I don't remember any 
President since I have been in the Senate who hasn't said something 
such as that when he submits the bills to the Senate. I can remember 
the Senate working its will, considering the President's requests. I 
remember President Reagan standing there with a big continuing 
resolution and supplementals and everything else we can imagine; it was 
about 2 feet high and tall, and in his State of the Union or speech to 
the Congress, he said: Don't ever send me another bill such as this. I 
will veto it. Well, guess what. We kept sending bills, and if they 
weren't that high, they might have been close to it. That is what we 
have on our hands here, the chief executive insisting on his right to 
participate in the process and be an influence in the process through 
the budget submission and the request for appropriations that he is 
bound to make to the Government every year, and we are bound to 
respond. We are bound to act, and we have.
  So I am not quarreling with the technicality; what I am suggesting is 
we have denied our own Members the opportunity to openly discuss, to 
debate, to offer amendments on these bills. I think we need to 
reexamine that process of putting half of the day-to-day operations of 
the Government on auto pilot, which is what was the result, for 6 
months--for 6 months--rather than negotiate with the President, or 
attempt to override his veto. We can override the veto, too. It is not 
the end of the world when the President vetoes a bill.
  So the majority continues to express confidence that the Congress 
will be able to come back next year and, working with the next 
President, we hope to complete action on the remaining appropriations 
bills. Whether that is realistic to expect, we will wait until the next 
Congress and confront the next administration with our views on the 
appropriations levels and the proper way to write these bills of 
funding the Federal Government.
  I fear the next Congress may refuse to do that and instead extend the 
continuing resolution through the end of the year. There may be some 
adjustments made here and there. We have done that before. We did it in 
2007. We wouldn't spend much less under that scenario, but we might 
omit some details, guidance, and oversight provisions that are our 
responsibility to undertake.
  So if the majority was unable to win concessions from the President 
on their spending priorities, we could have

[[Page 22520]]

overridden the President's vetoes or rewritten the bills to accommodate 
the President's concerns. There is nothing to stop Congress from coming 
back next year and working with the next administration to address in 
supplemental legislation any shortfalls we may become aware of. That is 
probably what we will end up doing. But with this CR, this continuing 
resolution, we will put half of the Government adrift, in effect, for 
the next 6 months.
  We have been able to take some comfort in the past by the fact that 
the Appropriations Committees did that which was their responsibility 
to do. This year, however, even the committee has fallen short. In the 
Senate we marked up only 9 of the 12 appropriations bills. In the 
House, only five were reported from the full committee.
  That is because the majority didn't want to take votes on the single 
issue which has been the top priority of American families throughout 
the summer--energy prices. The majority didn't want to risk even 
considering amendments to amend or repeal the moratoria on oil and gas 
development on the Outer Continental Shelf, or the moratorium that 
prohibits the development of Rocky Mountain oil shale deposits.
  I was elected by the people of my State to vote on issues such as 
energy policy. That is what we are here to do. But we spent much of the 
summer, in effect, avoiding our responsibilities.
  What has been the result? Before us we now have an appropriations 
bill that does exactly what the majority had hoped to avoid--it lifts 
the moratoria on oil shale and Outer Continental Shelf development. In 
the process of getting to that result, however, Members of the House 
and Senate Appropriations Committees have been denied the opportunity 
to debate and offer amendments to the other appropriations bills, 
including the Defense appropriations bill that is buried in this 
package.
  This saddens me.
  I regret that Republican committee members in the other body were 
denied an opportunity to amend the Defense or Homeland Security bills 
that are part of this package.
  I regret that Republicans in the other body were denied an 
opportunity to offer a motion to recommit this bill. The majority 
precluded even this minor parliamentary opportunity by using the fiscal 
year 2008 Homeland Security bill as a shell for this bill.
  I am sorry for all Members of the other body who were denied any 
opportunity to offer amendments to any piece of this package aside from 
the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. Even amendments to 
that bill were controlled by an unusually restrictive rule.
  I regret that some members of the Senate Appropriations Committee 
were unable to offer amendments to the Defense bill, the Interior bill 
or the legislative branch bill because those bills were never brought 
before the committee.
  I am sorry for all the Members of this body who will have no 
opportunity, and have had no prior opportunity, to offer amendments to 
the various elements of this package.
  This is a $1 trillion appropriations bill, yet there has been no 
conference committee to resolve differences between the House and 
Senate. This Senator has taken part in only a single meeting on this 
bill, and that meeting was confined to the Defense Appropriations 
chapter and was limited to the chairmen and ranking Members of the 
Defense subcommittee. There was no similar meeting for any of the other 
parts of this bill. Instead, decisions were made exclusively by staff, 
the committee chairmen, and the Democratic leaders.
  To be clear, Chairman Byrd and his staff have been steadfast 
throughout this process in advocating for Senate priorities. I am 
grateful for Senator Byrd's support, and other Senators should be as 
well. I would like to be able to help him, however, and I know my 
colleagues on the committee would like to help as well. Yet without 
markups or conference committees or formal meetings, there is no venue 
for Members to express their views or advocate for their priorities.
  Some will criticize this bill for including billions and billions in 
earmarks that were tucked into a must-pass spending bill behind closed 
doors. It may surprise people to hear me say this, but there is some 
truth in this. While I will defend vigorously the right of Congress to 
appropriate funds for specific purposes or projects, I will also defend 
the right of individual Senators to challenge those choices throughout 
the legislative process. Just like anything else in a bill, earmarks 
should be subject to scrutiny and amendment in committee, on the floor, 
and during conference. We do ourselves a great disservice by 
centralizing decision-making in the hands of a few, and by not allowing 
all Members of the House and Senate to contribute their own unique 
knowledge and ideas to legislation.
  Don't get me wrong. This bill includes many positive measures.
  In the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs chapter, the 
Department of Veterans Affairs is funded at a record level of $94.4 
billion, including $31 billion for medical services. Our commitment to 
quality care for our veterans has never been greater.
  The Homeland Security chapter includes funding for 2,200 new border 
patrol agents, $775 million for continued work on physical and tactical 
infrastructure along the southern and northern borders, and funding 
above the President's request to accommodate an additional 1,400 
detention beds.
  The Defense chapter provides a balanced approach to readiness, 
modernization and quality of life programs for U.S. military men and 
women. It provides the level of support that they deserve--including 
additional family advocacy programs, enhanced health care, improved 
training, and state-of-the-art equipment.
  The bill includes $9.3 billion for the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency for essential disaster response across the United States. These 
funds are crucial to help our citizens and communities recover from 
recent disasters such as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, as well as past 
disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.
  At the end of the day, I am pleased that we will get the three 
principal security-related appropriations bills to the President. I 
regret the process that has brought us to this point, and the degree to 
which Members have been shut out of the decision-making. It would be 
unconscionable for Congress to adjourn without enacting a Defense bill 
while our troops are in the field, fighting to implement the policies 
of our government and sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice.
  I will support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. 
But we must do better next year. We must put the upcoming election 
behind us, and recognize that shortcuts in the legislative process are 
often the long way around. Enacting appropriations bills is one of the 
core duties of the Congress. If Congress is to regain the trust and 
respect of the American people, we must perform that duty in a timely 
and transparent fashion.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  My hope is we will admit we have responsibilities that go beyond 
putting the Government on this auto pilot as we have described. We are 
here to challenge the President when we disagree with him, but we don't 
need to avoid completely our responsibilities or abrogate our 
responsibilities.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to note that under the 
previous order cloture having been invoked on the motion to concur in 
the House amendment, the motion to concur with an amendment falls.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, let me say that I share the disdain the 
able Senator from Mississippi has expressed for this process. 
Everything the able Senator has said is absolutely correct. The last 
time that all appropriations bills were sent to the President on time 
was 1994 when I was chairman. We should all do better, and I look 
forward to working with the able and distinguished Senator to return to 
the regular order.

[[Page 22521]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I sincerely thank my distinguished 
colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, the chairman of our committee. We 
have worked closely together during my time in the Senate. I have 
enjoyed the opportunity to learn from him. I appreciate the cooperation 
he has extended to me personally. Also, that is true of his staff 
members, that we have worked together and with mutual respect. That 
respect still continues. I am grateful for it. I know that by 
continuing to put our best efforts forward, we can improve this 
process, and I look forward to that day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very able and distinguished 
Senator.
  I certify that the information required by Senate rule XLIV related 
to congressionally directed spending has been available on the publicly 
accessible congressional Web site in a searchable format at least 48 
hours before a vote on the pending bill.
  Madam President, I speak today in support of the fiscal year 2009 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill which addresses America's most 
critical and pressing security needs. The Appropriations Committee, 
which was established in 1867, by a vote of 29 to 0, produced a 
balanced and responsible bill. We had a good negotiation with the 
House.
  The legislation invests the resources needed to protect our citizens 
from deadly terrorist attacks, to secure our borders and enforce U.S. 
immigration laws, and to ensure a rapid and effective Federal response 
to both natural and manmade disasters.
  The bill total is $42.2 billion. That is $42.20 for every minute 
since Jesus Christ was born. The bill total is $42.2 billion, which is 
$2.4 billion above the President's budget request. And despite--hear me 
now--despite the administration's assertion that al-Qaida has 
reconstituted itself in Pakistan with the goal of striking America, the 
President--get this--the President submitted a flat budget proposal for 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  I am going to read that again. It bears reading again. Despite the 
administration's assertion--that is, this administration--this 
administration's assertion that al-Qaida has reconstituted itself in 
Pakistan with the goal of striking America, the President submitted--
that is your President, my President, our President, Madam President--
the President submitted a flat budget proposal for the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  The President--your President, my President, our President--proposed 
deep cuts--you hear that--the President proposed deep cuts in funding 
for our Nation's first responders.
  The message that is now before the Senate increases our ability to 
secure the homeland--this homeland, our homeland--by increasing 
resources for border security, restoring irresponsible cuts in first 
responder grants, funding immigration enforcement, and increasing 
funding above the President's request for core homeland security 
missions that help to keep our people--your people, my people--our 
people safe.
  Finally, the bill includes new requirements for contracting, 
procurement, and program oversight, helping to ensure that taxpayer 
dollars are being carefully spent.
  The legislation significantly increases resources for border 
security, including $775 million, as requested, for border fencing and 
technology on the southwest border and funding to hire 2,200 new Border 
Patrol agents and 892 new Customs officers.
  The legislation provides significant resources for immigration 
enforcement, including over $1 billion to identify and remove from the 
United States criminal aliens who are either at large or already 
incarcerated in prisons or jails, funding for 1,400 new detention beds, 
$60 million above the request for work site enforcement, and $226 
million to fully fund 104 fugitive operations teams that locate and 
remove illegal aliens who have been ordered removed from the country.
  The legislation restores irresponsible cuts in first responder grants 
by providing $4.244 billion--$16.2 million above fiscal year 2008 and 
$2.071 billion above the President's fiscal year 2009 request.
  Port security grants are funded at $400 million, and rail and transit 
security grants are funded at $400 million. FIRE Act grants are funded 
at $565 million, which is $265 million over the President's request, 
and SAFER grants are funded at $210 million, which the President 
proposed to eliminate.
  The bill provides critical increases above the President's request 
for core homeland security missions, including the Coast Guard, the 
Secret Service, aviation security, and FEMA.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a more detailed description of the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Bill Highlights

       The legislation significantly increases resources for 
     border security, including:
       $775 million, as requested, for border fencing and 
     technology. Of these funds, $100 million is made available 
     immediately, $40 million is directed toward Northern border 
     security, and $30 million is for interoperable communications 
     grants for communities along the border. $400 million is 
     withheld from obligation until the Department submits a 
     detailed expenditure plan. It is expected that nearly all of 
     the 670 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers on the 
     Southwest border will be complete or under contract by the 
     end of January 2009.
       2,200 new Border Patrol agents--this will bring the total 
     number of agents to 20,019 by the end of Fiscal Year 2009. It 
     also adds funds to transfer 75 experienced agents to the 
     Northern border.
       892 new CBP officers and specialists, including 561 for 
     land border ports of entry, 173 for airports, 100 agriculture 
     specialists, and 58 trade specialists.
       The bill provides significant resources for immigration 
     enforcement including:
       Direction that $1 billion be focused on identifying and 
     removing from the United States criminal aliens who are 
     either at-large or already incarcerated in prisons or jails. 
     This includes $150 million above the request, added by the 
     Senate bill, to continue the Secure Communities program that 
     was initially funded last year.
       1,400 new detention beds, for a total of 33,400 beds--400 
     more than requested.
       $60 million above the request for worksite enforcement 
     (including detention beds associated with worksite 
     enforcement actions). Worksite enforcement is funded at 
     $126.5 million.
       $226 million to fully fund 104 fugitive operations teams 
     that locate and remove illegal aliens who have been ordered 
     removed from the country but who have absconded.
       $189 million for the Criminal Alien Program to identify and 
     remove aliens currently serving time for crimes committed in 
     this country.
       The bill restores irresponsible cuts in first responder 
     grants:
       The bill restores irresponsible cuts in first responder 
     grants by providing $4.244 billion for the programs, $16.2 
     million above FY 2008 enacted and $2.071 billion above the 
     President's FY 2009 request. Port security grants are funded 
     at $400 million, which is $190 million over the request. Rail 
     and transit security grants are funded at $400 million, which 
     is $225 million over the President's request. FIRE Act grants 
     are funded at $565 million, which is $265 million over the 
     President's request. And SAFER grants are funded at $210 
     million, which the President proposed to eliminate.
       The bill provides critical increases above the request for 
     core homeland security missions:
       The bill provides $294 million for the purchase and 
     installation of explosives detection equipment for checked 
     baggage at airports, $140.1 million above the request and the 
     same level enacted in Fiscal Year 2008. When combined with 
     $250 million in mandatory funds for this program, the bill 
     provides $544 million. TSA is in receipt of over 80 requests 
     totaling $700 million for airport facility modifications for 
     optimal checked baggage screening solutions. The increase of 
     $140.1 million above the President's request greatly 
     accelerates the ability of TSA to implement these optimal 
     systems.
       The bill provides $250 million for checkpoint screening 
     equipment, $122.3 million above the President's request and 
     the same level enacted in Fiscal Year 2008. At the 
     President's request level, deployment of screening technology 
     would decrease by 64 percent compared to Fiscal Year 2008. 
     The bill's increase will allow TSA to accelerate the purchase 
     of technologies that can provide significant improvements in 
     threat detection at passenger checkpoints.
       The bill provides $122.8 million for air cargo security, 
     $18 million above the President's request and $49.8 million 
     above the

[[Page 22522]]

     Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level. The bill's increase will 
     allow TSA to expand technology pilots that evaluate the 
     effectiveness of air cargo screening and to audit indirect 
     air carriers, shippers, and distribution centers 
     participating in the certified shipper program.
       The bill provides $1.1 billion within the total 
     appropriation provided to the TSA for activities and 
     requirements authorized by the 9/11 Act, including $544 
     million for the procurement and installation of explosives 
     detection systems at airports; $122.8 million for air cargo 
     security; $30 million to expand Visible Intermodal Protection 
     and Response Teams; $390.7 million for specialized screening 
     programs (travel document checkers, behavior detection 
     officers, bomb appraisal officers, and officers to randomly 
     screen more airport and airline employees); $11.6 million for 
     surface transportation inspectors; and $20 million to 
     implement regulations and other new activities authorized by 
     the 9/11 Act.
       The bill provides $819.5 million for the Federal Air 
     Marshals (FAMs), $33.4 million above the President's request 
     and $49.9 million above the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level. 
     The increase will allow FAMs to maintain current coverage on 
     critical flights.
       The bill provides $108 million for Coast Guard response 
     boats, $44 million above the request and $63 million above 
     the Fiscal Year 2008 enacted level. This funding will allow 
     the Coast Guard to purchase 36 Response Boat-Mediums (RB-Ms) 
     in Fiscal Year 2009, 22 more than the President requested. 
     The RB-M is a critical Coast Guard asset that will replace 
     aging 41-foot Utility Boats acquired in the early 1970s and 
     serve as a platform for boardings, search and rescues, and 
     port security. Recent studies have identified the lack of 
     response boats as an impediment to fully implementing the 
     Coast Guard's mission requirements.
       The bill provides $353.7 million for the Coast Guard's 
     National Security Cutter (NSC), the same amount as the 
     President's request and $188 million above the Fiscal Year 
     2008 enacted level. Of this amount, $346.6 million is for the 
     production of NSC #4, and $7.1 million is for the structural 
     retrofit of NSC #1. The bill's accompanying statement 
     expresses concern with purported cost increases above the 
     requested level and requires the Coast Guard to provide the 
     Committees with detailed information on all reasons why there 
     may be a nearly 50 percent increase in the cost of this 
     cutter.
       The bill provides $30.3 million above the request to re-
     activate USCGC Polar Star, a Coast Guard heavy polar 
     icebreaker. Over 22 percent of the world's energy supply is 
     under the Arctic ice cap. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev 
     has stated that Russia should unilaterally claim part of the 
     Arctic, stepping up the race for the disputed energy-rich 
     region. Russia has a fleet of 20 heavy icebreakers and is 
     nearing completion of the first of their newest fleet of 
     nuclear-powered icebreakers in an effort to control energy 
     exploration and maritime trade in the region. Thanks to the 
     Bush Administration, the United States has only one 
     functioning heavy polar icebreaker. These funds will allow 
     the Coast Guard to reactivate the Polar Star to extend its 
     service life 7 to 10 additional years. The Navy and the Air 
     Force call our need for polar icebreaking capabilities ``an 
     essential instrument of U.S. policy'' in the region.
       The bill provides $23.5 million above the request for Coast 
     Guard port and maritime safety and security enhancements. 
     Funds are provided for additional watchstanders, boats, and 
     marine inspection staff; to conduct testing of Area 
     Contingency Plans; to increase maritime casualty 
     investigations; to increase armed boat escorts and security 
     boardings; and to increase terminal inspections of Certain 
     Dangerous Cargoes transport and delivery.
       The bill provides $4 million above the request for cyber 
     crimes investigations by the Secret Service and $1.7 million 
     above the President's request for international 
     investigations.
       The bill provides $97.6 million for a new consolidated 
     headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
     DHS headquarters facilities are currently located in 
     approximately 40 locations and 70 buildings throughout the 
     National Capital Region.
       The bill provides $904 million for FEMA Management and 
     Administration, $19 million over the President's request and 
     $279 million over FY 2008. For too long, FEMA was left to 
     wither on the vine. This investment continues the restoration 
     of needed resources for an Agency that is vital to the 
     prevention, preparedness, and response efforts of this Nation 
     as threats loom and disasters strike.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very able, very distinguished 
Senator, Thad Cochran, the ranking member, for his many notable 
contributions to this legislation.
  I also thank our able majority and minority staff who worked together 
to produce this legislation. Let me name them: Charles Kieffer--let me 
say that again--the inimitable Charles Kieffer, Chip Walgren, Scott 
Nance, Drenan Dudley, Christa Thompson, Tad Gallion, Rebecca Davies, 
Carol Cribbs, Arex Avanni, and Adam Morrison.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I thank all Senators.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask that the time be equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I appreciate the unanimous consent 
request that allows me to spend a little bit of time on this bill. 
Before I get into the bill, I wish to answer the most senior Senator we 
have in terms of the President's request for flatlining a lot of DHS.
  I happen to be on the Homeland Security Committee, and I can tell 
you, outside the Pentagon, there is no agency in the Government that 
has more waste, fraud, and abuse than the Department of Homeland 
Security. Any business manager or any family could quickly see that you 
could easily flatline it and make it much more efficient and do a good 
job for the taxpayers. So the motivation by flatlining is to try to 
generate some efficiency in the Department of Homeland Security.
  I also wish to associate some of my words with the Senator from 
Mississippi on terms of process. We have a tremendous amount of money--
$643 billion--that this bill has. Here is the bill. It is another one 
of those thick bills we are going to send over. There are going to have 
to be technical corrections--we know that--in any big bill we do this 
way. But there is something fundamentally flawed, and it doesn't have 
anything to do with the bill; it has to do with the process.
  We have an Appropriations Committee that does generally a very good 
job on most of these items, but what we have done is excluded the whole 
body from their input into making decisions about some $640 billion 
worth of spending. As far as the discretionary budget, it is about 65 
percent of the total discretionary budget that we are going to pass, 
and it is not going to have any input except for 29 Members of this 
body--no input, no chance to change policy, no chance to put 
limitations, no chance to truly do what should be done. We have to ask 
the question: Why is that? Why is it that appropriations bills did not 
come through this body this year? I think the reason is, not because 
they didn't really want people to try to improve and perfect the 
legislation, it is that we didn't want any votes that might make some 
political party--one or the other, ours or the majority--to have a 
political advantage through a vote. That is a very terrible way for 
this body to descend into politics instead of policy. This bill 
contains tons of earmarks. Some are bright, some stink. Some, when the 
light of day is shone on them, the American people will actually gasp 
and say: Where was the common sense? How in the world are my children 
paying for us spending money like this?
  I am concerned, not because of the present crisis we have in front of 
us. I think this body, by the time this weekend is completed, will have 
addressed that issue and started down the road. But what we are doing 
is treating a symptom of a disease Congress has, and that disease is 
lack of oversight to see how we are spending the money, lack of metrics 
to be able to measure the effectiveness of programs. We are highly 
resistant to holding administrative agencies accountable, and we are 
restricting the ability of individual Senators to offer positions for 
the body to consider. Not that they may be won, but that the whole 
country loses when we don't have the debate.
  There are many egregious earmarks that are in this bill, and I will 
tell you I think our appropriations process this year is broken, that 
it doesn't serve the country well. There is no question we need to fund 
the agencies, but what we are doing is we are taking three agencies and 
we are funding them--we will not allow amendments or allow

[[Page 22523]]

the body to work--but the rest of the agencies will run in a status quo 
until March 6. Now, let me give you an example of why that is bad.
  I had the good pleasure of meeting with a couple of Oklahomans who 
happened to be traveling back here last Monday. They happen to work for 
the weather service. They are both acquisition officers for the weather 
service, and here is what happened to them last year--and it is going 
to happen again this year. They are going to get their final numbers 
sometime in late March. We will pass the information on for them as to 
what they are allowed to spend. They will have less than 3 months to 
contract and acquire everything for 12 months. They are telling me it 
is impossible for them to do a good job; that there is no way they can 
be frugal, efficient, and get great value for the American public the 
way we are running the appropriations process.
  Now, that has nothing to do with my colleague from Mississippi. His 
desire would have been to bring these bills to the floor, have them 
amended, have them voted on, and send them to the House. But a 
leadership decision was made that we could not do that.
  Now, I want you to multiply these two gentlemen who were acquisition 
specialists in the weather service, multiply that across the whole 
Government, and what we have done is we have squeezed, into a 3-month 
period of time, acquisitions that normally take 6 to 9 months to do 
properly and efficiently and in a frugal way for the American 
taxpayers. Consequently, we are going to waste another 10 or 15 percent 
of the money in these appropriations bills.
  Then, when it comes to the end of the year, if any money is left 
over, here is what they told me they have to do. They have to spend the 
money to make sure the Appropriations Committee will give them the 
money next year, even though they had trouble spending the money this 
year because we put a time constraint on them.
  None of us would run our businesses, none of us would run our 
families that way. Yet we are telling the rest of the Federal 
Government--great employees whom we have--to do something that is 
impossible to do in an efficient and orderly manner.
  There are a lot of things that have happened in the last 2 years in 
the way this Senate is run. I believe most of them were for political 
reasons. They were not intended to hurt the policy, but nevertheless 
the policy is tremendously damaged. It is my hope that come January, 
when we have a new leader in the White House, no matter who it is, he 
will recognize the severity of the appropriations process and its 
impact on waste in this country.
  As I frequently do, I wish to raise again to the American public and 
this body the fact that the Government Accountability Office, the 
various inspectors general, the Congressional Research Service, and the 
Congressional Budget Office can specifically lay out for the American 
people at least $300 billion a year of spending that is either pure 
waste, fraud or total duplication. At a time when we are going to have 
a $600 billion accounting deficit--because you have to add what we are 
stealing from Social Security to what we spend to get what our real 
deficit is--does it make any sense that we would continue to have $300 
billion worth of waste, fraud or abuse and duplication in these bills? 
There is not one attempt in this bill to eliminate that. Not one. Not 
one.
  So as you think about your quarterly tax payments or you think about 
your paycheck stub and the taxes taken from you, your income tax and 
estimated payments, and you think about what we are not doing, you 
ought to be awfully dissatisfied as an American taxpayer. We have 
failed the test. We have failed the test. Why it is important is 
because what we have done is mortgaged the future hopes, freedom, and 
prosperity of our children and our grandchildren.
  I am disappointed, to say the least, with the process. But I am more 
disappointed in the fact that we are going to earn a reputation that we 
have not done our jobs.
  Serious concerns with the economy should turn the attention of 
Congress away from parochial interests toward national interests.
  Congress has focused on parochial interests for far too long, 
spending more time securing earmarks than doing the business of the 
American people.
  Our Nation faces an economic challenge today equal to any challenge 
we have previously faced and now requires our full attention.
  The following snapshot of our economy should impress upon everyone 
the seriousness of the job ahead.
  The national debt currently stands at over $9.58 trillion, the 
largest in world history.
  This year's deficit, in real accounting terms, stands above $600 
billion.
  This year alone, taxpayers will spend more than $230 billion just to 
pay the interest on the national debt.
  Since 2006, gas has risen from $2.24 per gallon to nearly $4 a 
gallon.
  More Americans are out of work; the unemployment rate has increased 
from 4.9 percent in January to 6.1 percent in August.
  In 2008, over 600,000 jobs have been lost.
  According to USDA projections, the Consumer Price Index--CPI--for all 
food is forecast to increase 4.5 to 5.5 percent in 2008. For example, 
since 2006 the price of milk has increased approximately 16 percent.
  According to Reuters news service, the total tab for government 
rescues and special loan facilities this year is more than $900 
billion, not including the proposed $700 billion rescue of the 
financial markets in the Paulson plan.
  Already this year, the Federal Government has taken drastic steps to 
stabilize the economy, all using taxpayer dollar. While several of 
these amounts may be fully repaid to taxpayer, they involve huge 
liabilities and expenditures:
  $200 billion was authorized for use in rescuing Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac. The Treasury will inject up to $100 billion into each 
institution by purchasing preferred took to shore up their capital as 
needed;
  $300 billion for the Federal Housing Administration to refinance 
failing mortgages into new reduced-principal loans with a Federal 
guarantee;
  $4 billion in HUD grants to banks to help hem buy and repair homes 
abandoned due to mortgage foreclosures;
  $85 billion loan from the Fed for AIG, which would give the Federal 
Government a 79.9 percent stake and avoid a bankruptcy filing for the 
embattled insurer;
  At least $87 billion in repayments to JPMorgan Chase & Co. for 
providing financing to underpin trades with units of bankrupt 
investment bank Lehman Brothers;
  $29 billion in financing from the Fed for JPMorgan Chase's 
Government-brokered buyout of Bear Stearns & Co. in March;
  At least $200 billion of currently outstanding loans to banks issued 
through the Federal Reserve's Term Auction Facility, which was recently 
expanded to allow for longer loans of 84 days alongside the previous 
28-day credits;
  Starting last year, Social Security and Medicare projected 
expenditures exceed revenues. Over the next 75 years, this will cost 
$41 trillion in present value terms. Of that amount, $34 trillion is 
related to Medicare and $7 trillion to Social Security. By one account, 
the current unfunded liabilities of Medicare and Social Security are 
above $100 trillion.
  If we think that the current economic troubles are a concern, wait 
until the bill comes due for all of the reckless spending Congress is 
engaging in today.
  Members should focus like a laser on these issues rather than 
concentrate their efforts on political games and earmarks.
  Instead of doing any of this, Congress is now planning to ram through 
an irresponsible continuing resolution to keep the Government operating 
during fiscal year 2009.
  None of these issues are addressed in the bill but only compound the 
problems. Congress seems to have not learned its lesson.
  The appropriations process is broken and excludes Members from 
considering serious issues.

[[Page 22524]]

  The Senate is preparing to vote on an appropriations bill that will 
cost $634 billion, which will include funds for all of our national 
security agencies, disaster relief, and a continuing resolution for the 
2009 fiscal year. Yet the text of the bill only came available late on 
Tuesday night, with no one having seen a word of it except for a few 
Democratic staff and Members in the House. Further still, a joint 
explanatory statement was released yesterday afternoon.
  This must be what the House Appropriations Committee chairman meant 
when he said that the continuing resolution would be drafted in 
``secret.''
  The following is an excerpt from an article yesterday in Bloomberg 
News.

       The plan outlined by Obey would give Republicans less than 
     24 hours to scrutinize legislation spending more than $600 
     billion on the Defense, homeland security and veterans' 
     affairs agencies including thousands of pet projects known as 
     earmarks.
       Asked if the process has been secretive, Obey said: 
     ``You're d**n right it has because if it's done in the public 
     it would never get done.'' He said he wanted to avoid his 
     colleagues' ``pontificating'' on the content of the 
     legislation, saying ``that's what politicians do when this 
     stuff is done in full view of the press.'' He said ``we've 
     done this the old fashioned way by brokering agreements in 
     order to get things done and I make no apology for it.''

  It is easy to understand why the House Appropriations Chairman would 
want to conduct his business in secret, as one who received $51.5 
million in earmarks for his district.
  The one constitutional duty of the Congress is to pass legislation 
funding the operations of Government, and yet his duty has been 
entirely abandoned by the majority.
  Congress is now less than 1 week away from the beginning of fiscal 
year 2009, and yet it has not passed one appropriations bill.
  The only bill to receive a vote by either body is the Military 
Construction--Veterans Affairs appropriations bill that passed the 
House of Representatives.
  No appropriations bills have even been brought to the floor of the 
Senate during the entire calendar year 2008 thus far--though the Senate 
is now expected to vote on three of the largest bills having had 36 
hours to review the $634 billion in spending they contain.
  The appropriations process should have begun long ago. It is unfair 
to taxpayers when Congress chooses to pass large legislation in the 
dark of night rather than debate them for all to see.
  Congress now finds itself considering major national security 
legislation in one day under pressure of both a Government shutdown and 
delay on an important piece of economic legislation.
  Had the majority leader taken action earlier this year, Members would 
be free to concentrate fully on the Treasury proposal. Instead, they 
are distracted by making sure that their earmarks and pork-barrel 
projects are in the CR.
  The CR has been loaded down with billions of dollars in wasteful 
earmarks.
  Despite having had only 1\1/2\ days to look over the bill, it is 
plain that there are a large number of highly questionable earmarks set 
to receive funding in 2009.
  In just the three appropriations bills for the Department of Defense, 
the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Veterans 
Affairs/Military Construction, there are 2,627 earmarks worth $16.1 
billion.
  This means that without even funding the remaining nine 
appropriations bills, Congress has nearly reached the dollar value of 
all earmarks in fiscal year 2008.
  According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there were 11,620 
earmarks worth $17.2 billion for all 12 appropriations bills in 2008.
  In fiscal year 2008, the average dollar amount of each earmark was 
$1.48 million.
  In the continuing resolution before the Senate, the average dollar 
amount for each earmark is $6.1 million-- more than five times higher.
  Every dollar that goes to an earmark in this bill is a dollar that 
will not go to important national security programs at the Departments 
of Homeland Security and Defense.
  What kind of projects are receiving earmarked funds out our national 
security agencies in 2009?
  $3.2 million for the High Altitude Airship--Senator Sherrod Brown. 
After spending millions to investigate and develop a blimp-based 
platform for ICBM surveillance, the Missile Defense Agency--MDA--
cancelled the program--called the High Altitude Airship--due to myriad 
capability limitations.
  MDA did not request funding for the program for 2008. However, $2.5 
million in earmarks in the 2008 Defense appropriations bill revived the 
cancelled program, despite the fact that no one else at the Pentagon 
had expressed interest.
  After shopping the program around, Lockheed Martin managed to pass 
the program to Army Space and Missile Defense Command, which will now 
begin investigating if there is any utility for them with the program.
  The project has been based in Akron, OH, funded by a $1 million 
earmark toward the program by Senator Brown, who has a long record in 
opposition to missile defense.
  $2 million for Hibernation Genomics--Senator Ted Stevens. This 
earmark would provide funding to the University of Alaska for research 
into the hibernation genomics of Alaskan ground squirrels.
  University of Alaska lobbyist, Martha Stewart--no relation--claims 
that the research into squirrel hibernation will one day help wounded 
soldiers in the battlefield.
  According to Ms. Stewart, the university is well equipped to do the 
work. She insists: ``We have a number of ground squirrels that are in 
various stages of hibernation in Fairbanks.''
  And $800,000 for the Columbia College Chicago Construct Program--
Senator Dick Durbin. Columbia College claims to be the ``Nation's 
largest private arts and media school in the Nation.'' It offers a wide 
selection of coursework in audio arts, dance, film, journalism, poetry, 
and radio. According to the school's annual report, it received $2.7 
million in Federal grants during 2007 from the Department of Education, 
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Corporation for National and Community 
Service, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Department of 
Health and Human Services.
  Since 2000, Columbia College Chicago has received over $275 million 
in grants, cooperative agreements, and direct payments from the Federal 
Government.
  And $800,000 for Partnership in Innovative Preparation for Educators 
and Students and the Space Education Consortium--Senator Wayne Allard 
and Senator Ken Salazar. The Space Education Consortium was created by 
the Air Force in 2004 as a partnership with the University of Colorado 
and others to promote science education for professionals as well as 
``getting space technology and curriculum infused throughout the U.S. 
education system from kindergarten to post-graduate work.
  ``It is a chance to grow a cadre of space professionals from the 
launch pad to the stars,'' said Air Force General Lance Lord, commander 
of the Air Force Space Command.
  A July 2008 report by the DOD Inspector General stated that this 
earmark was not consistent with the department's mission ``to provide 
the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of 
our country.''
  And 24.5 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center--
Representative John Murtha. Every year, millions of dollars for our 
national defense are siphoned away from the military's budget to pay 
for a single program administered not by the Pentagon but by the 
Department of Justice.
  This funding is directed to the National Drug Intelligence Center--
NDIC--which the Department of Justice has asked Congress to shut down.
  The former director of NDIC even confessed to U.S. News, ``I 
recognized that a lot of [NDIC] reports were God-awful, poorly written, 
poorly researched, and, some cases, wrong.''
  Another former director even admitted, ``I've never come to terms 
with the justification for the NDIC'' and ``the

[[Page 22525]]

bottom line was that we had to actually search for a mission.''
  According to an investigation by the Government Accountability 
Office, NDIC duplicates the activities of 19 drug intelligence centers 
that already existed.
  Since 1992, the center has received over 500 million in federal 
funding.
  $15 million for Waterbury Industrial Commons Redevelopment 
Initiative--Senator Joe Lieberman and Representative Chris Murphy. 
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, ``This would clean up a 
decades old munitions factory to be used as a city-owned industrial 
park.
  The Fairfield Weekly reports that the State of Connecticut has turned 
down requests to fund this project--each year the Mayor of Waterbury 
``makes the trip to Hartford seeking the money, and each year comes 
back empty handed.''
  Why should the American taxpayer fund that which State of Connecticut 
will not provide funding?
  And $4 million to the Go For Broke National Education Center. This 
earmark is aptly named in light of the fact that Congress is helping 
the Nation ``go broke.''
  And $9.9 million for the U.S.S. Missouri Memorial Asociation. 
Visitors can go aboard the battleship from World War II that survived 
the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
  While preserving the Nation's history is important, this is not only 
something that could be funded privately, it is not a priority at this 
time.
  And $1.6 million for New Electronic Warfare Specialists Through 
Advanced Research by Students Representative David Hobson.
  And $4.5 million for the 2010 Olympics Coordination Center Senator 
Patty Murray and Representative Rick Larsen.
  And $800,000 Pseudofoliculitis Barbae--PFB--Topical Treatment--this 
goes to ISW Group in St. Louis, MO--Senator Kit Bond.
  There is $10 million for the Intrepid Museum Foundation.
  And $4 million for the Nimitz Center.
  And $1.2 million for the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 
Monterey Institute for International Affairs--Representative Berman.
  And $10 million for the New Mexico State University Institute for 
Defense and Public Policy----Senator Jeff Bingaman.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to comment 
briefly on a letter which I am sending today to the executive 
officials, to Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, and to the 
legislators who are involved in the negotiations on the economic 
proposal, with the suggestion that extensive consideration be given to 
loans instead of purchasing the toxic securities.
  I think the model of AIG would be very appropriate to use as opposed 
to the purchase of those toxic securities. It will be very difficult to 
ascertain what is fair value for those securities when there is no 
market. But the AIG example was a good one, with the Government 
securing a preferred position, substantial interest rate, and excellent 
opportunities to get the money paid back.
  I also urge the negotiators to give consideration to the proposals by 
the House Republicans on the so-called insurance fund. I believe all 
the options ought to be weighed when we are dealing with a matter of 
this magnitude. When we deviate from the regular legislative course, we 
are in a very difficult area.
  As to the proposal of the $700 billion, I believe we have not yet had 
a sufficiently specific description on that figure. It is a gigantic 
figure, and the public response, understandably, is why and what are 
the causes for the problem. That is my view, too, as to why the figure 
has been advanced. There has been no specification as to why we need 
that figure.
  On the proposals to advance part of it initially, I think that is a 
good idea. I don't know that the figure has to be as much as $250 
billion. There ought to be justification for why that figure is 
selected. And then the proposal for an additional $100 million, with 
the request of the President, I think is sound, to have a procedure for 
staged installments. But even as to the President's request, there 
ought to be some standards specified.
  Then, as to the balance of the $350 billion, or whatever sum that is, 
we have to be careful that we do not violate the holding of the U.S. 
Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, where there was an effort to have 
legislative refusal of certain executive action by the Attorney 
General, the Supreme Court said where there is deviation, you have to 
follow the regular legislative process--passage by both Houses and 
approved by the President. So we are in a very complex legal area, 
which I urge the negotiators to study carefully before coming to any 
judgment. When regular order is not followed, we are on thin ice.
  The executive branch negotiators, Secretary Paulson and Chairman 
Bernanke, would not have any reason to know the intricacies of the 
legislative process, but they have served our country very well for 
more than 200 years. As we all know, it starts with a bill, a bill we 
can read. Well, we still don't have a bill, and we are talking about 
passage within the next couple days. After you get a bill, you have 
hearings. There have been some hearings, but not in the context of a 
specific bill. Then the proponents of the legislation are asked to 
testify, and there are people opposed to it or people with other ideas 
who testify before the relevant committee--which would be the Banking 
Committee in this situation. They are subject to examination and cross-
examination and pushed as to exactly what they have in mind.
  Then, after the hearing, or hearings, are completed, there is 
committee action and what we call a markup, where the committee goes 
over the proposed legislation line by line and decides whether there 
should be changes and then votes on the changes. The committee then 
files a report. It is usually thick and complicated. It comes before 
the Senate and we debate it and we offer amendments.
  The same thing happens in the House. Finally, when each House has 
acted and there is passage of the bill proposed, it goes to conference, 
where it is further refined and then is presented to the President. The 
President takes an additional look at it to see if he thinks it ought 
to be approved or if it ought to be rejected.
  Well, that is a very lengthy process, and I think we ought to be very 
careful when we deviate from that process so we know what we are doing. 
Perhaps there is not time--well, there isn't time to go through the 
exhaustive process, which would take a considerable period of time--but 
when we deviate from that process, we ought to be careful that we know 
what we are doing and not set arbitrary time limits which are very 
brief.
  I have taken a look at the Dow for the intervening period between 
Friday, September 19, and Friday September 26--yesterday. When the 
proposals were made over the last weekend, there was an urging of 
Congress to act before the 26th, which was our scheduled date for 
adjournment. Then we thought: Well, maybe Saturday or Sunday or maybe 
Monday morning. Next week we have the Jewish holidays, and Yom Kippur 
in the week that follows. But on the Dow, which closed at 11,388 on 
Friday, September 19, it declined 2.15 percent over a week to close at 
11,143 on September 26. By measuring from September 19, on September 22 
it was down 3.27 percent; on the 23rd, it was down 1.47 percent; on the 
24th, it was down .27 percent; on the 25th, it was up 1.82 percent; and 
on the 26th, it was up 1.1 percent. So the net figure was down 2.15 
percent.
  We would rather see the Dow go up, but that is not a precipitant 
decline. It is my sense that the market--Wall Street, that entity which 
calibrates the market--would understand it takes some additional time. 
As long as they

[[Page 22526]]

have seen that Congress is working as promptly as practicable, then I 
do believe there would be a sufficient opportunity without having a 
precipitous slide. Obviously, we can watch it on a day-by-day basis, 
and we ought to move as promptly as we can, but I do believe it is not 
a matter which has to be done yesterday or tomorrow. We have to do it 
promptly and show that we acknowledge the problem.
  There is a consensus, with very few dissenters, that something needs 
to be done and something very substantial.
  Our actions need to be very thoughtful and very careful. We also need 
to assure the American people that our actions are thoughtful. Senator 
Casey and I had an open forum on Pennsylvania Cable Network on Tuesday, 
where we had call-ins, and the temperature out there is 212 degrees 
Fahrenheit or higher. It is boiling. We have a responsibility in the 
Congress to make judgments and we listen to our constituents but, in a 
representative democracy, as Edmund Burke said several hundred years 
ago, it is our responsibility to exercise our best judgment.
  The intervening days have given us an opportunity to see the issue 
percolate in the country, where people consider it, where there are 
talk shows and radio and television and op-ed pieces, and we get to 
digest it and sleep on it for a few days, which is a very healthy 
thing.
  I heard a suggestion from the former Speaker of the House, Newt 
Gingrich, that whatever the proposal is, it ought to be on the Internet 
for 24 hours. Maybe that is not quite long enough, but it is projected 
that in 24 hours you would have thousands of responses, or perhaps 
millions of responses the way the Internet is watched. That would put 
us on guard that something has not been slipped in. These bills turn 
out to be very voluminous. It started off as a 3-page memorandum; now 
it is more than 100 pages. America could provide us with some good 
ideas so that we are alerted to something being slipped in that we 
can't rectify after the fact, or alert us to some unintended 
consequences.
  In conclusion, it is my hope the Congress will act in a way which 
will be effective, after we have given the entire matter appropriate 
consideration and consider views beyond those expressed by Secretary 
Paulson and Chairman Bernanke. There has been some significant 
movement, movement toward oversight, not allowing the people who have 
gotten us into this mess to profit--the golden parachutes, et cetera. 
But we are on the road to acting. I think we have to do it in an 
appropriate timeframe.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter I am sending to the executive 
branch, those involved in the negotiations, be printed in the Record; 
in addition, a letter which I sent to Secretary Paulson and Chairman 
Bernanke dated September 23 be included in the Record; and a letter I 
sent to Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell, dated 
September 21, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:
                                               September 27, 2008.
     Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson,
     Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke,
     Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi,
     House Republican Leader John Boehner,
     Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
     Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell,
     Chairman Christopher Dodd,
     Ranking Member Richard Shelby,
     Chairman Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member Judd Gregg,
     Chairman Barney Frank,
     Ranking Member Spencer Bachus,
     Senator Bob Bennett.
       Gentlemen and Speaker Pelosi: I write with some suggestions 
     on the prospective legislation to deal with the economic 
     crisis and to urge you to take the time necessary to give 
     appropriate consideration to it without rushing to judgment. 
     In the past week, I, like many members, have been reaching 
     out to economists and other experts and have had suggestions 
     coming in from economists and other experts, as well as 
     listening to the suggestions made by other members of 
     Congress.
       I urge you to consider lending federal funds with senior 
     security as opposed to having the federal government buy 
     toxic securities. The AIG model could be used. The obvious 
     difficulty for the federal government to go into the market 
     to buy toxic securities is the difficulty in assessing 
     realistic value in the absence of a market. With a lending 
     approach, the government is likely to be able to have lesser 
     expenditures with a better chance of repayment. I further 
     urge a real consideration to the proposals made by House 
     Republicans for an industry-financed insurance program for 
     mortgages which are in default.
       As to the overall figure of $700 billion, Congress should 
     have a detailed explanation as to how at which that figure 
     was arrived and the necessity for such a large sum. I favor 
     the proposal to have the federal funds advanced in 
     installments. Consideration should be given to having the 
     first installment less than the $250 billion as currently 
     proposed. On additional installments, it is a good idea to 
     require a presidential certification with the legislation 
     specifying standards which the President should use.
       On the stipulation to give Congress to the option to object 
     to the final $350 billion, care must be exercised not run 
     afoul of the Supreme Court decision in INS v. Chadha which 
     requires following regular legislative process with passage 
     by both houses and presi action and perhaps inferentially 
     legislative conditions.
       In a letter dated September 21, 2008 I wrote to Majority 
     McConnell urging that we not rush to judgment. Many have 
     argued that the situation is so dire that there must be 
     immediate Congressional action in order to avoid a 
     cataclysmic result in the market. My view, as expressed in my 
     letter to Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke on 
     September 23, 2008, is practicable to enact a serious, 
     substantial program since there is a solid consensus that 
     some major government aid must be and will be forthcoming.
       On September 19, 2008, there were predictions of dire 
     consequences if legislation was not passed by September 26th. 
     The Dow declined by 2.15% from September 19th from 11,388.44 
     to September 26th to 11,143.13. During this time, there was 
     no major deviation from September 19th: 9/22--down 3.27%; 9/
     23--down 1.47%; 9/24--down .27%; 9/25--up 1.82%; 9/26--up 
     1.1%. It is noteworthy that the market ended on a positive 
     note at the end of e week, even though Congress had not 
     passed legislation.
       I urge time for due deliberation because of the risks when 
     we do not follow regular order. For those who are not 
     acquainted with the details of the legislative process, there 
     should be a focus on the institutions of Congress which have 
     served this nation so well for more than 200 years. The 
     legislative process begins, as we all know, with the 
     introduction of a bill. As yet, we do not have in writing the 
     traditional starting point, a bill which we can study and 
     analyze. Next there are hearings on the bill with testimony 
     from its proponents. Then the committee of jurisdiction 
     listens to opponents or those with other ideas and all the 
     witnesses are subject to questioning, really cross 
     examination, by members of the committee.
       Then the committee sits in what is called a markup going 
     over the proposed legislation line by line with votes on 
     suggested changes. A committee report is then filed and the 
     measure is called for floor action in each house with debate 
     and opportunity for amendments. The bills passed by each 
     house are then subjected to a conference where further 
     refinement is made before the legislation is presented to the 
     president.
       When we depart from regular order, we are on very risky 
     ground. I am not suggesting that this full time-consuming 
     process legislative be followed; but we should take great 
     care in the consideration of this legislation to compensate 
     as much as possible for the departure from regular order.
       I pass on, for your consideration, an idea proposed by 
     former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who suggests that 
     the final proposal be put on the internet for 24 hours. 
     Speaker Gingrich suggests, and I concur, that such a proposal 
     would be read by thousands if not millions of people who 
     could then inform the Congress of provisions which are so 
     often slipped into legislation unbeknownst to the members and 
     further give us appraisals of unintended consequences.
       As already noted, I wrote to Secretary Paulson and Chairman 
     Bernanke by letter dated September 23, 2008 (copies enclosed 
     for the additional addressees), not yet answered, which 
     raises questions which I would like to have responded to 
     before I am called upon to vote.
       We have a duty to the American people to act responsibly to 
     address the problem, protect the taxpayers, and take every 
     measure to ensure that this does not happen again.
       Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 2008.
     Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
     Secretary of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, 
         Washington, DC.
     Ben S. Bernanke,
     Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke: I write to 
     you because I am in the

[[Page 22527]]

     process of deciding how to vote on legislation to deal with 
     the economic crisis. I agree that there is need for federal 
     action; but I am concerned that we not rush to judgment 
     without giving sufficient attention to the many complex 
     issues which are involved.
       At the outset, the, or a, precipitating cause was the fact 
     that hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps as many as five 
     million, faced an inability to make their mortgage payments 
     and eviction from their homes. These mortgages were 
     ``securitized,'' divided up and sold in packages to many 
     people or entities. As a result, it was not always clear who 
     had the authority to adjust these mortgages, and when it was 
     clear, adjustments were not made quickly enough. Last 
     November, Senator Durbin introduced S. 2136 and I introduced 
     S. 2133 to give the bankruptcy courts authority to revise 
     homeowners' financial obligations. Keeping people in their 
     homes should be a, if not the, fundamental object of 
     congressional action.
       After assisting homeowners, a decision should then be made 
     as to what additional federal aid is necessary to unclog the 
     lending pipelines and restore confidence and stabilize the 
     economy. I am very skeptical about granting authority to 
     spend $700 billion on other aid without standards as to who 
     should get the funds and a requirement that there be 
     demonstrated necessity that such additional expenditures are 
     indispensable to stabilizing the economy.
       Then there is the question of oversight and regulation. 
     Obviously, there must be oversight and some regulation to 
     prevent a recurrence. As I see it, the regulation must be 
     calibrated to those objectives and not go too far. Vigorous 
     enforcement of our laws to prevent market manipulation, as 
     well as added transparency, should be a priority.
       I hear tremendous resentment from my constituents on this 
     matter. In a free enterprise society, entrepreneurs may 
     undertake whatever risks they choose to secure big profits, 
     but when there are losses, they should not turn to the 
     government for a bailout which puts the burden on the 
     taxpayers. The firms/corporations and their executives who 
     created the crisis should not profit from a federal bailout. 
     If it is not already a part of your proposal, you should 
     consider structuring the funding in a way that gives the 
     Government a preferred creditor position and a share in 
     ultimate profits, rather than simply buying up debt which has 
     declined in value. And any aid should be conditioned on the 
     elimination of golden parachutes or large compensation 
     packages.
       Also, I am concerned about reports that foreign 
     corporations, with a United States affiliate, will 
     participate in a federal bailout. If foreign corporations are 
     to get funding, then foreign governments ought to bear their 
     fair share.
       I know there is concern that Congress must act promptly or 
     the economy may deteriorate further. It seems to me that Wall 
     Street should and would understand that legislation on this 
     complex matter requires some time. If it is seen that 
     Congress is moving as swiftly as practicable, that ought to 
     stem the tide. But we can only do it as fast as realistic to 
     work through the legislative proposals and resolve these 
     intricate issues.
       These are issues which come to my mind at the moment and I 
     am sure there will be more as the hearings progress and the 
     debate occurs. I would appreciate your responses as promptly 
     as possible.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                               Washington, DC, September 21, 2008.
     Senator Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Senator Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Harry and Mitch: As you project the Senate's schedule, 
     I urge that we not rush to judgment and take whatever time is 
     necessary on any proposed legislation to deal with the 
     nation's economic problems. The public, our constituents, 
     have a great deal of skepticism, which I share, about 
     legislation which will let Wall Street ``off the hook'' and 
     pay insufficient attention to Main Street, middle class 
     Americans.
       It is important to focus the legislation on the hundreds of 
     thousands of homeowners who are at risk of losing their 
     residences to foreclosure.
       In deciding what additional powers to give to the federal 
     regulators, I believe we should give careful consideration to 
     not extending those powers beyond the current crisis and 
     steps to prevent a recurrence.
       I have read reports that some Wall Street firms, whose 
     conduct has created the crisis, will benefit from a 
     congressional legislative fix. We should do our utmost to see 
     to it that those responsible for the crisis bear the maximum 
     financial burden on any bailout in order to minimize the 
     taxpayers' exposure.
       There are reports that the bailout might be extended to 
     foreign firms with United States affiliates. In my view, the 
     legislation must be carefully tailored for United States' 
     interests and if foreign firms, even if United States 
     affiliates are to be involved, then consideration should 
     given to appropriate contributions from those foreign 
     governments.
       I realize there is considerable pressure for the Congress 
     to adjourn by the end of next week, but I think we must take 
     the necessary time to conduct hearings, analyze the 
     Administration's proposed legislation, and demonstrate to the 
     American people that any response is thoughtful, thoroughly 
     considered and appropriate.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. SPECTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, as we try to end the session today, I 
think I am looking for some silver lining in all we are doing here, 
with the panic I believe we here in Congress have created in our 
markets and credit industry and passing this conglomeration of bills 
without adequate debate. There is one silver lining for me that I think 
we need to mention to the American people. A number of families are 
suffering for a lot of reasons, but one of the greatest is the high 
cost of gasoline in this country--and now even shortages. But because 
of the anger of the American people, because of the e-mails that have 
come in, this continuing resolution we will be voting on today includes 
a huge victory for the American people because the moratorium on oil 
and gas leasing on most of the Outer Continental Shelf and on oil shale 
leasing on Federal lands will expire.
  Many thought this was a law that we couldn't change, but the fact is 
this was a year-to-year rider on spending bills that had to be included 
every year or it would expire. But because Americans got engaged in 
this whole idea of making October 1 Energy Freedom Day, our Democratic 
colleagues have backed down and have not included an extension of this 
moratorium in this year's bill.
  So at midnight on October 1, 2008, because it is a start of a new 
fiscal year, the current prohibitions on oil and gas leasing on most of 
the Outer Continental Shelf and on oil shale leasing on Federal lands 
will expire. That is something to celebrate here in America.
  Estimates from the Minerals Management Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management indicate there are upwards of 18 billion barrels of 
recoverable crude oil on the currently off-limit areas of the Outer 
Continental Shelf, as well as more than 55 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas.
  Estimates of American oil shale vary widely but range from the 
hundreds of billions of barrels to trillions of barrels of oil. Many 
believe we have more oil in oil shale than Saudi Arabia has.
  Taking advantage of America's resources will increase the worldwide 
supply of petroleum and bring down prices at the pump. The very access 
to these resources will send powerful price reduction signals to the 
futures market, providing immediate price relief, even if the actual 
leasing does not commence for months.
  Everyone is familiar with the crisis on Wall Street. The coverage 
dominates every media outlet. But we also have a crisis on Main Street, 
where people are paying outrageously high prices for gasoline and 
having to wait in long lines to fill up their cars.
  Here are only a few headlines we are starting to get from newspapers. 
The Associated Press headline: ``The Southeast Shortage Squeezes Small 
Retailers and One Gas Station Owner Says It's A Panic.''
  CBS News reported in their headline in North Carolina: ``Gas Shortage 
Leaves People Panicked.''
  Washington Post, ``Gas Shortage in the South Creates Panic and Long 
Lines.''
  It goes on and on. This is very real. This is not something we are 
manufacturing and it is a direct result of bad policy here in Congress 
that has restricted the development of our own energy here in America.
  Unfortunately, we are still having to wait for a number of Members of 
Congress to allow this to proceed. It was announced earlier this week 
that the

[[Page 22528]]

Democrats had given up on their efforts to block energy exploration, 
and America celebrated. But then not more than 24 hours later we 
learned the majority leader here was making plans to rob Americans of 
this victory by extending the ban on oil shale. Fortunately, that 
effort was defeated yesterday. Now media reports indicate that 
Democrats also have a plan to delay any offshore drilling using 
environmental lawsuits until after the November elections, when the 
Democrats can reinstate the ban on deep sea energy exploration.
  In fact, House Majority Leader Hoyer told cnnnews.com on Wednesday 
that restoring the ban on new offshore oil drilling leases will be a 
top priority for discussion next year. If the Democrats retain control 
of Congress, he said, I am sure it will be a top priority for 
discussion next year.
  This is outrageous. The American people will not tolerate it. That is 
why I have written a bill that is called the Drill Now Act, which will 
guarantee access to offshore and oil shale reserves. It will expedite 
the leasing and production of these energy supplies and provide States 
with a 50-50 share of the revenues with the Federal Government and 
prevent frivolous lawsuits from delaying the will of the American 
people. This is very simple and it is what Americans want. I hope my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle will set aside their desire 
to punish Americans for buying gas and side with the American people.
  Yesterday I asked unanimous consent that we bring this bill up and 
pass it, but it was objected to by the majority leader. We will 
continue this effort, to try to pass this bill that will expedite 
energy production in our country.
  I wish to mention a few things we will be voting on in an hour 
because this is, frankly, an embarrassment in a time we are running 
around here like Chicken Little saying `` the sky is falling.'' The 
credit markets are seizing up--this has been a self-fulfilling 
prophecy. We have created a crisis in our country. But while we are 
talking about a financial crisis and an economic crisis all around 
America and the world, it is business as usual here in the Senate. When 
the Democrats took control 2 years ago, they promised we would end this 
wasteful spending and cut earmarks dramatically, but the continuing 
resolution we are voting on today goes right back to where we were, and 
worse. This bill includes $16.1 billion in earmarks--that is billion. 
There are over 2,620 earmarks in this bill. For all the appropriations 
bills last year, there were less than that, and this only includes 
three. There is more porkbarrel spending today than we did all of last 
year, at a time when we are saying the country is running out of money.
  At this rate, for these three bills, the 2009 fiscal year budgets 
will see more earmarks than we have ever seen in history. Most 
Americans are beginning to understand how this wastes their money and 
corrupts the process. Let me mention a few of the earmarks that are in 
this bill.
  There is $44 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center in 
John Murtha's district, a project the Defense Department has said 
repeatedly it does not want or need. But every year it comes back 
because it is in a Congressman's district.
  There is $1.75 million for a heritage center that Speaker  Nancy 
Pelosi put in for a museum that is negligible--it has no value to the 
men and women in uniform.
  There is $1.28 million for a Navy museum included by Congressman 
Dicks. The military doesn't need another museum, they need the tools to 
fight the war. If we had billions of extra money sitting around, maybe 
we could talk about these extravagances, but when we are going into 
more and more debt, hundreds of billions of dollars a year, it makes 
absolutely no sense to be including over 2,000 earmarks, wasteful 
spending, in a bill that includes serious military needs.
  Americans are angry. They are hearing we have to bail out Wall 
Street. They are angry at wasteful spending and they have every right 
to be. When the Democrats took control, the Congressional Budget Office 
projected an $800 billion surplus between 2008 and 2017. But after 2 
years of Democratic control, that same budget office now projects a 
$2.6 trillion deficit over the same period. That is $3.4 trillion in 
deterioration of our budget situation. As I said, even worse; wasteful 
spending and secret earmarks are back in full force.
  Americans have seen, over the last couple of years, this Congress do 
things and attempt to do things that they know are bad for our country. 
They saw a massive amnesty bill for illegal immigrants come through, 
but we were able to stop it because of the anger of the American 
people. They have seen this Congress for years stop the development of 
our own resources, our own energy, and now prices are through the roof 
and shortages are occurring.
  But the anger of the American people is beginning to get the 
attention of Congress. We have stopped this moratorium, and we are 
making progress. Now we are talking about this massive bailout of Wall 
Street that was caused by bad policy here in Congress that we still 
refuse to change.
  While this bailout may be necessary for reasons we have caused here 
in Congress, we need to do it in a way that protects the taxpayer and 
includes some free market principles. We need to do some things that 
actually solve the problems that caused what we are dealing with today. 
We need to do some things that support some free market principles and 
guarantee that the Government is not going to be a permanent player in 
our financial markets.
  Americans are angry. I hope they will stay angry because the more 
they call and e-mail, the more we can get things done here that are 
right for American people. We stopped their amnesty bill, we have 
stopped the moratorium on drilling, and we have gotten their attention 
on this bailout. Now they are listening to some of the better solutions 
that have been brought up. So I thank the American people for being 
engaged. Because of their action, we have a chance now to make some 
major changes here in Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse.) The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senator DeMint for his 
principled leadership and his willingness to talk about some difficult 
issues. I want to talk about some of those today.
  I absolutely believe the question of energy is a major contributing 
factor to the fundamental difficulties we are having in the economy 
today. We calculated--my staff--that the average American two-car 
family is paying $105 more per month today for gasoline than they were 
a year or so ago. This is, in effect, a gas tax, and if a particularly 
onerous event occurred--and today I heard that after the University of 
Alabama had a little football game with Clemson University and pulled 
off a victory, they were saying there was not enough gas for Alabamians 
to go to Georgia to play the University of Georgia football team today. 
Well, they would have walked over there, if necessary. It would have 
been an exciting game.
  But there is a problem out there, and it has been unaddressed by this 
Congress. So we are now in the closing days of the 110th Congress. 
Although some work may be completed, it appears that we are soon--in a 
matter of hours--going to adjourn.
  I would note that today is September 27, 2008. The Senate has been in 
session for 148 days this year. There are 96 days left on the calendar, 
but on September 30 the fiscal year ends. October 1 is a new fiscal 
year, and the fundamental responsibility of the Congress and the Senate 
is to authorize and appropriate the moneys necessary to run this 
Government. We are within days--a couple or 3 days--of that deadline 
arriving. We have yet to do it. So what we will be seeing here is a 
very unfortunate event where everything will be completed in a matter 
of a few hours.
  They are saying that this is an election year and we need to get out 
of Washington and go home and campaign. I understand that. People do 
need to see their candidates, and certainly campaigns are important to 
America. They help the electorate become more knowledgeable and select

[[Page 22529]]

the best candidate. But I want to be clear, the decision to adjourn 
this week is a completely arbitrary decision. It is nothing more than a 
date circled on a calendar. It would not set back the pace of democracy 
in America for Congress to stay here and work and to actually cast 
votes and to be held accountable for what it does. How much more time 
would it take? I do not think a lot. But we certainly would not hurt 
the Republic doing that. In my opinion, this Congress and this Senate 
are failing the American people.
  Senators and their staff are already scurrying around the Capitol 
trying to tie up the loose ends to justify a departure. Members also 
will soon hit the trail, making the case for why the people should send 
them back here. It might be a tough case to make for some of us. I am 
up this time. I am certainly working, and have been for some weeks, 
trying to discuss with the people of my State the issues they think are 
important and how I hope to address some of those.
  A recent Fox News poll reports that only 17 percent of the American 
people approves of the way Congress does business. That is a really 
distressing number, 17 percent. It may be the lowest we have ever had. 
It means that 8 out of every 10 Americans are unhappy with the 
Congress. And if the American people really knew how this great 
heritage of debate, amendments, and discussions that this Senate has, 
how that has been eroded, I think they perhaps might be even more 
unhappy with us.
  While it is typical that the last week of Congress is rushed and a 
lot happens, and I understand that, I do not recall a time since I have 
been in the Senate that we have rushed through so many important issues 
in such a very short time. Over these closing hours, the Senate will 
likely call up and vote on three major pieces of legislation, huge 
pieces of legislation. These huge pieces of legislation will pass, I 
predict, with no opportunity for amendments and no real debate.
  First, we considered, without debate, a $56 billion new stimulus 
package. We did $150 billion earlier, sent out the checks and that sort 
of thing. I have to say, I did not support it. It certainly has not 
gotten us out of the fix we are in, almost doubling the projected 
deficit for this year, every penny of that stimulus package--emergency 
spending, on top of the debt--every penny increasing the debt. And this 
stimulus package, thank goodness, that was proposed by the Democratic 
leadership was defeated and did not pass, which would have added 
another $56 billion straight to the national debt. It included a $7.5 
billion bailout for automobile companies. But it has been put back in 
the CR, even though it failed in that package, and presumably will 
pass, as I will discuss.
  Second, we are considering a continuing resolution, with an omnibus 
spending bill attached, that will fund military projects in the 
Department of Defense and Homeland Security.
  Third, we will consider an unprecedented $700 billion financial 
industry saving--economy saving, they say--bailout. I think we do have 
a problem with the economy, and this Congress needs to act and we need 
to act quickly, so certain normal processes will have to be truncated. 
We have some good people who are focused on that. But it is a closely 
held deal, very few people meeting in private meetings, unavailable to 
the public, writing the legislation that will dispense with $700 
billion. In truth, I do believe and hope and pray that even though we 
are exposed for $700 billion, we will not actually, as a government, 
take that big a hit. I think there will be a recoupment. I certainly 
hope and pray it will be recouped.
  So these are three extraordinarily important pieces of legislation, 
each of which is being moved through Congress in the closing hours of 
the session with virtually no public, open debate. I suggest it raises 
questions about the historic purposes of the Senate. None of the three 
bills have been subject to the traditional legislative process.
  We only received the continuing resolution from the House last night. 
It is 344 pages involving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. 
How is it possible that we could fully understand its impact before we 
vote today?
  I have been a Member of this Senate for 12 years. There was one thing 
that slowed down the trains. You know what it was--the sheriff, Senator 
John McCain. He would come down here, to this chair right here--I have 
seen him do it--not for some political gimmick but because he was 
concerned about this process--and he would object to any UCs until he 
had a chance to read the bill, and he would come down and highlight 
what he considered bogus and wasteful spending. He even opposed some 
spending I put in those bills. But that was healthy. But they wanted to 
pass those bills, the powers that be, without any debate, without 
anybody reading them, just pass them. That is not a healthy thing for 
the great Senate of the United States of America to do.
  Well, we have not seen a firm legislative proposal regarding the 
bailout yet, but we are going to vote on it today, tonight, tomorrow, 
Monday. The Senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative 
body, but if we are honest, we will have to admit we have fallen far 
from it. In fact, I think we are standing on the cusp of the greatest 
legislative failure of Senate leadership in my tenure here for sure.
  The growing trend to procedurally, through manipulation and other 
efforts, limit free and open debate, to block the ability to improve 
legislation through the technique of filling the tree, which the 
majority leader, the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, has done--it has 
been done by Republicans in the past. It has reached a new height, 
anybody would have to agree, under Senator Reid, all of which is 
designed to avoid the committee process traditionally available in the 
Senate. And they use small groups of Senators--I have taken to calling 
them masters of the universe--to negotiate deals behind closed doors 
and deposit that bill on the floor of the Senate with the idea that: It 
has to be passed. We are going to recess. We have no time to discuss 
and debate and vote.
  Mr. President, I would ask that I be notified when 20 minutes has 
passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think this is bad for America. It is a bipartisan bad 
thing. It was not good when Republicans were doing it, and it is not 
good now that the Democrats have carried it even further.
  This Congress is no longer serving in its traditional role of 
protecting and allowing the American people to see the issues before 
them, to be the saucer that allows the debating issues to be cooled and 
debated. I worry about it.
  There was a time when, if you look back at debates, according to a 
gentleman from Harvard who studied this, the debates focused on what 
was in the long-term interests of the country, and people debated that 
and they said: Well, if we give money to people who invested recklessly 
or people who are lazy and will not go to work, will we not encourage 
reckless investment, or when we encourage people to stay home and draw 
a check? I mean, they asked these kinds of questions and they discussed 
them because what we do here has certain importance. But it is too rare 
today.
  The legislative process, I have to say, is broken. The congressional 
budget and spending process is broken. The American people need to know 
what is happening and what is not happening here.
  So in the spirit to reach the finish line, I am going take a few 
moments to highlight some items that I see as an example of the broken 
nature of the process.
  There is no better scorecard for how a Congress operates than the 
tally of appropriations bills that are actually debated. There are 12 
appropriations bills we must pass each year. Traditionally, each one is 
brought up and voted on, and each one of those bills should be passed 
before October 1. They fund certain parts of the Government. As of this 
minute, this day, on the eve of our adjournment, this year's 
legislative score on the 12 bills is zero, none, not one. This is the 
first time it has happened in my 12 years in the Senate, that Congress 
failed to pass a single stand-alone appropriations bill on

[[Page 22530]]

time. Failure to move individual bills is more and more a common thing. 
Republicans and Democrats have both been guilty of this, but this year 
is the worst ever.
  The congressional budget and spending process is broken. Since 1980, 
only three times has Congress enacted all its appropriations bills, as 
they should, by the start of the fiscal year, October 1. Only three 
times in 28 years have we done our job on time. Mr. President, 138 
continuing resolutions, however, have been needed to keep the 
Government running. The reason for this is that any Government agency 
cannot expend a dime that is not appropriated by Congress. If we don't 
appropriate money for the next fiscal year beginning October 1, they 
cannot pay payrolls. They cannot pay the light bill. They cannot do 
necessary things. The Antideficiency Act says it is a crime for them to 
spend money not appropriated by Congress, and it violates the 
Constitution.
  These stopgap measures, these continuing resolutions, have been used 
as a method to keep the Government open. We can't agree on the 
appropriations bills, so we just continue funding at the present level 
without any real review or priorities, and it avoids discussion and 
debate. The American people should know a continuing resolution 
represents, in truth: a failure of Congress to get its job done.
  Also, over the past 12 budget cycles, Congress has passed 10 big 
omnibus bills, averaging about seven or eight bills each. They are put 
in massive form, as we will see, hundreds of pages oftentimes, with 
just a few hours to debate and very limited ability to file amendments. 
They have been rammed through the Senate and the House in the last 
hours of a session. Now the masters of the universe say: If we bring 
this bill up, people might actually offer amendments, and they might 
ask us to change the Tax Code. Somebody might want to raise or lower 
the capital gains rate. We would have to vote on that. We would be put 
on record as having to vote. We don't want to go back home and have a 
voting record. We are going to see if we can't bring it up at the end 
of the session.
  Don't think this is by chance. This is by design, to bring it up at 
the end of a session so there is little time for debate and discussion. 
Nobody can deny that. We know that, those of us who have been here.
  This year we are going to have both. We will have an omnibus bill 
where some actual appropriations bills are put together, and then we 
will have a continuing resolution. We will vote on the Department of 
Defense bill representing $487 billion. That is a pretty good chunk of 
money, not $700 billion but a lot of money. We will not have amendments 
on that bill. I am not happy with some of the things that happened that 
moved some money around since it left the Armed Services Committee, of 
which I am a member. As a practical matter, there is no way, I am told, 
I can get a vote from this body to try to correct it. We either take 
the bill, as the group of people who put it together approved it, or 
not.
  Let me move along and share this thought with my colleagues. It is 
something we have to do. I offer this as a bipartisan solution that I 
believe would make a big difference. There is no single cure for what 
we are doing. It takes a determination by each of us that we want to do 
a better job of affirming and defending and validating the historical 
prerogatives and responsibilities of the Senate.
  Let me suggest that a biennial, 2-year budget process would be a 
tremendous step in the right direction. It is good Government reform. 
Biennial, 2-year budgeting has been supported by the last four 
Presidents, Democrats and Republicans. It has strong bipartisan support 
in this Congress.
  Some people know every time a bill passes--and they are skilled at 
it--they can stick something on it. They believe if the bill isn't 
passing but once every 2 years, they might have less opportunity to 
stick some special interest pork project on it. But whatever, we would 
be doing 2-year budgets, and a change from that would have benefits. By 
eliminating the budget decision to every other year, Congress would 
have considerably more time to spend passing critical legislation such 
as this bailout package, actually giving it thought. Two-year budgets 
would allow more time for considering things such as the energy crisis, 
for heaven's sake. That is critical. It would also allow much better 
oversight of existing wasteful programs that are not achieving what 
they are supposed to.
  Two-year budgeting would provide Federal agencies such as the 
Department of Defense more time to complete their core missions. They 
are over here all the time, every year, trying to work through 
congressional arguments and fusses over what DOD needs.
  Process does drive policy. The current budget process, the current 
appropriations process, is not working. It is an embarrassment to the 
heritage of the Senate. Two-year budgeting will not solve all our 
spending problems, but it would be a positive step. I believe this is a 
matter that would strengthen the Congress, our traditional role, 
improve the way we do business, and make our Government better.
  Putting together in a CR the appropriations bills points out the need 
for more oversight, more serious congressional action, including the 
fact that there is over $16 billion worth of earmarks in the bill that 
were not really brought forward in a way that somebody could pass them 
or reject them, based on whether they are legitimate. Senator DeMint 
mentioned some of those earlier today. I will mention one.
  The LIHEAP legislation eligibility was changed from 60 percent to 75 
percent of a State's median income for one to be eligible. That means 
more people would be eligible to have the Government pay for their 
heating oil. It has been said that this program would be able to be 
accessed by people who have high electricity bills and heating bills, 
maybe in Arizona, Louisiana, and Alabama. But look at the $2.88 billion 
designated as emergency. Almost all of this is going to be earmarked in 
a way that it is going to go to the Northeast. So it is not fair, No. 
1, and No. 2, I am not sure why people's gas bills are not going to be 
paid. Why are we picking on that?
  One more thing about that: I think it is particularly odd that 
Members of the Northeast who oppose consistently drilling off our 
shores, who consistently oppose natural gas pipelines, who oppose 
nuclear power oftentimes, they are now demanding that the U.S. 
taxpayers give them a subsidy so they can buy at below-market price 
dirty heating oil to heat their homes with. We hear we need to use more 
solar and geothermal and wind. Maybe we ought to give money for that if 
it is so wonderful. But this is an increase of a $2.8 billion emergency 
expenditure for LIHEAP.
  I think it is bad policy. In this crisis of time and overspending and 
deficits I don't believe another new $2.8 billion in emergency spending 
is good policy. I don't believe it is good for America. Sure, it is 
great if you have a check for your heating oil. You would say: Thank 
you, Uncle Sam. But somebody paid for that check. If not the taxpayers, 
our grandchildren.
  I would note, by the way, since we are already in deficit and this is 
emergency spending, every single dollar of that $2.8 billion increases 
the debt of the United States. There is no money to pay for it. There 
is lots of that kind of thing in there.
  I will not use the rest of my time to go through these kinds of 
matters, but I will note that the automobile bailout that I thought we 
had defeated with the second emergency supplemental is now back in the 
bill. It is going to pass, $7.5 billion to guarantee $25 billion in 
loans for automobile producers. We have to be careful about this. We 
have criticized the Europeans for subsidizing loans for their 
industries. Now we are in this hog wild. It is going to be a problem 
maybe in violation of the WTO agreements we have made.
  The heritage of the Senate is indeed a great one. We have been 
slipping in recent years away from full and open debate. I see the 
Republican whip is here, Senator Kyl. He remembers many of the 3-week 
debates on issues of importance in the day. That has gotten

[[Page 22531]]

less and less frequent as time has gone by. More and more power is 
asserted by fewer and fewer Members to move huge pieces of legislation 
without debate. It is not good.
  I urge my colleagues to consider what we can do about it. This year 
the train is on the track. I assume it is going to be able to move 
forward and carry these bills through. That is what I am hearing. That 
is what I hear the votes are. But I do think we need to change this. We 
need to return to the great heritage of the Senate. If it means we have 
to stay here for a week and stay into the night so people can come in 
and engage on how to fix the energy crisis or how to create more 
liquidity in the markets or what to do about the fundamental problems 
this country faces--as USA Today said the other day, three things: We 
are an economy founded on excessive personal debt, excessive government 
debt, and a massive trade deficit. We can move around with a lot of 
things to try to help the financial markets not be bottlenecked. But I 
am really worried if we don't deal with those things such as energy 
independence, things of that nature, the economy is not likely to 
improve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. While the Senator from Alabama is still on the Senate floor, 
it is with no great pleasure that any of us opposes a continuing 
resolution. But I associate myself with his remarks. At some point you 
have to say enough is enough. Unless people object to the process, it 
is not going to change. I note that when I try to explain to my 
constituents that is the way business is done in Washington. They say: 
Then try to stop it.
  So while it is with great reluctance that we oppose a continuing 
resolution, I don't know of any other way to make the point that this 
business as usual has to stop than by voting no. So I appreciate the 
remarks of my colleague from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank him for making that explicit point. It is sad 
that I feel I have to vote against the continuing resolution. But the 
Senator is so right. You have seen this for a number of years more than 
I. If we do not begin to push back against this process--and I think we 
could make a difference if we fight--it is going to continue. So I 
thank the Senator for his leadership and his insight and his commitment 
to reform in the great traditions of the Senate.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. President, I, first, wish to explain a little bit of the process. 
When I say we oppose a continuing resolution with great reluctance, the 
reason is that something has to be done to ensure that our Government 
can operate, the Government programs are funded.
  Unfortunately, we have ourselves in a bind because the Senate has 
passed not one single appropriations bill. There are about 13 different 
appropriations bills that we usually pass each year to fund the 
Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department 
of Defense--all the different things that need to operate with the 
Government--and we are supposed to have that done by the end of the 
fiscal year, which is in a couple days. Because we have not passed a 
single appropriations bill, we have to roll up everything all into one 
giant bill and either take it or leave it. It is called the continuing 
resolution. It continues to fund the Government, in this case, for 
another roughly 6 months. There is no opportunity to amend it. It is a 
take-it-or-leave-it proposition, and it is wrong. Because what happens 
is that bills that could not possibly pass on their own are added to 
this must-pass legislation, putting us in this absolute difficult 
political bind. The Hobson's choice: If you vote for it, you are saying 
yes to a broken system, to over 2,000 earmarks, to $34 billion in 
spending that is added to the national debt above and beyond the 
budgeted amount that otherwise is necessary to run the Government. So 
there is the pressure to vote for that. Yet there is no way for us to 
take each of these items out and say we would have voted to amend them 
out of the bill if we would have had a chance to do so, except to 
oppose the entire legislation.
  Let me give you some illustrations of this. Because this is done on a 
take-it-or-leave-it basis, I would have to vote against a bill which, 
first of all, funds the Department of Defense, which I want to fund, 
and the homeland security and military construction efforts. It funds 
border enforcement, which is important for my State of Arizona, and, 
importantly, it removes the moratorium on offshore drilling, which is a 
policy Republicans have pushed very hard to achieve. So those are good 
things in the bill that I wish to register my support for.
  But am I forced to take all the other things in order to register my 
support for these things? Here is what we are asked to swallow. 
According to the House Budget Committee, there are 2,627 congressional 
earmarks. They total $16-plus billion. Now, my colleague, John McCain, 
has made it clear that if and when he is elected President, this 
process is going to stop. But Senator Sessions and I wish to make the 
point that it should stop now. We do not need one last orgy of earmarks 
before the reformers come to town and say: It is stopped. I am going to 
veto the legislation.
  Now, what of these earmarks? Well, there are some very good projects, 
I suspect. Here is one, for example: $23 million for biomedical 
research at a particular State university. Now, one of the best 
biomedical research facilities is in the State of Arizona in Phoenix. I 
would love to have them be able to bid on that $23 million research 
grant. They would have a good chance of getting it because they are 
good. They do great work there. Why does this particular State 
university get the money instead?
  There is a $2 million study of animal hibernation. Now, there may 
well be some scientific reason to understand why animals--I mean, I 
think I know why they sleep over the winter, but there has to be 
something about that that is important to some scientists. But do we 
need to add that to the national debt or could it compete with other 
kinds of projects? That is the problem with this kind of bill: the take 
it or leave it.
  What you would like to do is establish priorities and say: All right, 
maybe an animal hibernation study is a good thing, but is it so 
important we need to add it to the national debt? That is the 
question--no debate, no amendment, take it or leave it.
  There is $44 million for a drug center for the military that it says 
it does not need, but it is important for a particular Member's 
district. Once again, prioritize. Some of these things may be good, but 
how about if you had them compete with other good things and the best 
ones are funded and the ones that are not so good do not get added to 
the national debt?
  There is a huge amount of money in here for the so-called CDBG 
disaster funds. Now, these are Community Development Block Grants, 
ordinarily considered to be long-term projects. In fact, this CDBG 
funding is to provide assistance for long-term rebuilding of 
communities, not emergency recovery. We have emergency recovery money 
in here for various emergencies or disasters, and I do not object to 
that funding. But why do we need to put in an emergency supplemental 
that is not paid for but is added to the Federal debt? This long-term 
spending money, it should not be in here.
  There is a total of $34 billion, as I said, in this unfunded 
emergency spending, about $16 billion, as I said, in earmarks. Another 
one of the elements is about $7.5 billion for the so-called auto 
bailout loans. There is money to our big auto companies. Now, it may be 
that you think our big auto companies need a little help from us 
taxpayers. I am not sure that is true. One of the reasons they say they 
need help is that the Government has put so many new obligations on 
them for fuel efficiency standards and other things that they need to 
retool in order to pay for them. Maybe we should not have put those 
obligations on them in the first place.
  But, in any event, there is something eerily familiar about this 
loan. Do you

[[Page 22532]]

remember in our financial market problem we are working on over this 
weekend, part of the issue is the fact that a lot of loans were issued 
to people with almost no payments due for several years. Low interest 
or no interest or no principal has to be paid, and then all of a sudden 
people find out after 5 years they have a big balloon payment they have 
to make and they cannot afford it. So you come in and foreclose on the 
home. People criticized the mortgage brokers who enticed them into 
those kinds of loans.
  Guess what kind of a loan this is for the auto companies. No 
principal, no interest for 5 years. What happens after 5 years? They 
are going to be back in here saying: Thank you for the $25 billion that 
we have not had to pay interest or principal on. We are going to have a 
hard time to pay that principal and interest now. Could you give us 
another hand?
  We are criticizing these folks who sold mortgages to people who could 
not afford them by having these no-interest and no-principal payments. 
Yet that is exactly what we are doing with these auto companies right 
now. Oh, they are happy to have the money, I know.
  Then, we have $2.8 billion in emergency funds for LIHEAP. That is 
above the regular appropriation, which is about twice again as much. So 
it is over $5 billion. My colleague from Alabama said, there is one 
little problem with this other than the fact it is a huge amount of 
money and not paid for, it is also very unfair. We come from States 
that are more in the South and in the West, and it is not a matter of 
freezing winters, it is a matter of stifling hot summers. The reality 
is the fuel oil to fuel heat in the winter is a whole lot cheaper than 
the electricity bill in Phoenix, AZ, or Yuma, AZ, in the middle of the 
summer, and people die from situations that arise from the fact that 
they cannot air-condition their home. However, with all this, Arizona 
gets a little less than 1 percent of the funding under the formula. 
Now, the Governor of Arizona, a Democrat, Governor Janet Napolitano, 
and I have both written letters to our colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, saying this is not fair. Phoenix is the fifth-largest city 
in the country. Arizona is a big State now, and it gets very hot 
throughout the summer months, and electricity bills are too high for a 
lot of people to afford. However, 1 percent is enough.
  Let me conclude by saying, as I said in the beginning, it is with 
great reluctance that we oppose a continuing resolution such as this. 
But there are so many things I have discussed, and more which I could, 
that require I register an objection and for which I am required to 
vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have business to bring before the 
Senate, and I understand this will not count against my time. May I ask 
the Presiding Officer?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________